Shawn W. Baker wrote: > > Hmmm...it strikes me there's something in that. (Making public 100 yds > back from beaches--not the revolution) Of course, almost all the land > in question is privately owned, so it would take a revolution. Too bad > it wasn't set up that way when the land was deeded. There are lakes > here in Montana that have all public beaches--it's like a big public > Boulevard--pretty nice, IMHO. FWIW, in Oregon, a landmark case in the early '70's made all of the beach zone public access -- up to the limit of high tides and waves, so that it is legal to walk anywhere from the water to that mark. In the state of Washington, private ownership of the same zone is commonplace, IIRC. One only has to walk a little bit of the shorelines of each state to see a dramatic difference. Mind you, I understand and have empathy for the concerns of upland landowners regarding those who abuse the privilege we have here in Oregon. However, there seems to be a strong sense of "we'll protect that beach -- we ALL own it" here in Oregon, which perhaps stems partly from the legal situation. I've seen the scene in the San Juans, and it is not pretty, either from the landowner's point of view, or from the paddler's perspective. It is not a good situation, but given the laws in the state of WA, it is no surprise. (Yes, I recognize that some of the problems up there come in areas where the upland landowner does NOT own or control the intertidal zone.) -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Mon Sep 27 1999 - 16:16:08 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:30:14 PDT